Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Lexmark

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
July 24, 2004 5:55:01 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I just installed a new Lexmark Printer. The sender addresses in the upper
left corner are always smeared.....

is there anything one can do to improve that, short of bringing the printer
back to the store?

if anybody has a good idea I would much appreciate to hear.........

Thanks in advance!

Hans in Canada....

More about : lexmark

Anonymous
July 24, 2004 10:20:38 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 13:55:01 -0400, "Hans" <lagom@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>I just installed a new Lexmark Printer. The sender addresses in the upper
>left corner are always smeared.....
>
>is there anything one can do to improve that, short of bringing the printer
>back to the store?
>
>if anybody has a good idea I would much appreciate to hear.........
>
>Thanks in advance!
>
>Hans in Canada....
>


If you could, bringing it back to the store for a refund would be your
best bet and then purchase a decent printer at the cost of 2 lexmark
cartridges.

Something such as the canon I860 would be a nice replacement, better
quality, reliability and extremely inexpensive refills by refilling
yourself.

As far as the smearing, You may or may not have an envelope printing
mode. That would increase the gap from the printhead to the envelope
and no smearing will occur. If you do not have that option then
theres nothing you can do except perhaps print your own self sticking
labels and apply them to you envelope
Anonymous
July 25, 2004 5:38:24 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Hans wrote:
> I just installed a new Lexmark Printer.

For the love of sanity - *WHY*?! No, don't answer that, I know exactly why -
it was 'cheap'. Had you read here before purchase, you'd have known that the
initial outlay may only be in the region of £40-£50, but they have the
highest running costs of any unit on the market. With Lexmark it isn't a
case of /if/ it fails, but /when/. I have yet to see one last beyond the
initial warranty period (usually 12 months, but they usually fail well
inside that).

OK, the cheapest Lexmark (Z705) can be had for around £35-£40. A replacement
set of cartridges (black, colour, photo) will set you back between £70-£80,
IOW, *TWICE* what you paid for the unit!

Go with Beezer's first suggestion - take it back and buy a Canon.
Related resources
July 25, 2004 3:01:59 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Dear Ms. Tick!

My Lexmark Z705 is perfect for the purposes intended. Occasional printing at
a reasonable price. The cartridges, oh well, I do not recall that the Canon
ink was noticeably more economical. The instructions for the Z705 are very
good indeed, which I could not say for the Canon - the latter must have been
written by some high school graduate in Japan.

The printing quality of the Z705 is good and I have learned how to avoid the
smudges in the upper left corner.

By the way, none of my previous Lexmark printers have "failed". However
they are inexpensive and I can afford replacement when new technologies come
around.

But, thanks for caring anyway.

Hans in Canada




"Miss Perspicacia Tick" <misstick@lancre.dw> wrote in message
news:9iDMc.288$846.120@fe48.usenetserver.com...
> Hans wrote:
> > I just installed a new Lexmark Printer.
>
> For the love of sanity - *WHY*?! No, don't answer that, I know exactly
why -
> it was 'cheap'. Had you read here before purchase, you'd have known that
the
> initial outlay may only be in the region of £40-£50, but they have the
> highest running costs of any unit on the market. With Lexmark it isn't a
> case of /if/ it fails, but /when/. I have yet to see one last beyond the
> initial warranty period (usually 12 months, but they usually fail well
> inside that).
>
> OK, the cheapest Lexmark (Z705) can be had for around £35-£40. A
replacement
> set of cartridges (black, colour, photo) will set you back between
£70-£80,
> IOW, *TWICE* what you paid for the unit!
>
> Go with Beezer's first suggestion - take it back and buy a Canon.
>
>
>
Anonymous
July 25, 2004 4:51:46 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 11:01:59 -0400, "Hans" <lagom@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>
>Dear Ms. Tick!
>
>My Lexmark Z705 is perfect for the purposes intended. Occasional printing at
>a reasonable price. The cartridges, oh well, I do not recall that the Canon
>ink was noticeably more economical. The instructions for the Z705 are very
>good indeed, which I could not say for the Canon - the latter must have been
>written by some high school graduate in Japan.
>
>The printing quality of the Z705 is good and I have learned how to avoid the
>smudges in the upper left corner.
>
>By the way, none of my previous Lexmark printers have "failed". However
>they are inexpensive and I can afford replacement when new technologies come
>around.
>
>But, thanks for caring anyway.
>
>Hans in Canada
>


I am glad you have great success with Lexmark but their output is very
very far from high quality. Occasional printing is far from
"Reasonably priced" as the longer they sit the more chances there
will be some noticable clogging.(usually 3 or 4 days)

The Canon Ink is very economical being that you only replace the color
ink that is needed thus not throwing away other colors that may be
near full for that matter. The lexmark guestimate on ink consumption
is very inaccurate.

What makes Canon even more economical is its ease of refilling
yourself with bulk ink and thus only costing 3 dollars or so per
refill of high quality ink from reputable sources.

Canon "I" series printers have been known to remain clog free even
after several months of remaining idle.

I assure you after seeing the power of a Canon or other high quality
printers, you will be amazed at the photo quality and versatility to
match most any paper and the driver options are fantastic.

Good luck


OH and by the way, Canon ink tanks hold atleast 3 times the amount of
a single color of any lexmark cartridge... THATS ECONOMICAL!!!!!
Anonymous
July 25, 2004 10:04:43 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Beezer wrote:

> OH and by the way, Canon ink tanks hold atleast 3 times the amount of
> a single color of any lexmark cartridge... THATS ECONOMICAL!!!!!

Not to mention the fact they're about a quarter of the price! ;o)
Anonymous
July 25, 2004 11:09:45 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Hans wrote:
> Dear Ms. Tick!
>
> My Lexmark Z705 is perfect for the purposes intended. Occasional
> printing at a reasonable price. The cartridges, oh well, I do not
> recall that the Canon ink was noticeably more economical. The
> instructions for the Z705 are very good indeed, which I could not say
> for the Canon - the latter must have been written by some high school
> graduate in Japan.

Have to disagree with you on both counts. The Z705 black cartridge holds
20ml and costs around £25. The Canon i9950 cartridge holds around 30ml and
costs £5. So, for the price of the Lexmark cartridge I could buy five for
mine and, therefore, have 7.5 times more ink. Now, if you don't call that
economical, then there's something seriously wrong with you.

Canon has been awarded the Plain English Campaign's Crystal Mark for the
clarity of its manuals (and well deserved it is too).


> The printing quality of the Z705 is good and I have learned how to
> avoid the smudges in the upper left corner.

If you think the quality is good, you have diabolically low standards. I
believe that the z705 has an 8pl drop size. My printer has 1.5. That's more
than 5 times the size.

>
> By the way, none of my previous Lexmark printers have "failed".
> However they are inexpensive and I can afford replacement when new
> technologies come around.

Erm, you have one that's failing/failed now - and I bet you've ditched the
others before they have. How long has a Lexmark lasted you?! Go on.
Truthfully.


> "Miss Perspicacia Tick" <misstick@lancre.dw> wrote in message
> news:9iDMc.288$846.120@fe48.usenetserver.com...
>> Hans wrote:
>>> I just installed a new Lexmark Printer.
>>
>> For the love of sanity - *WHY*?! No, don't answer that, I know
>> exactly why - it was 'cheap'. Had you read here before purchase,
>> you'd have known that the initial outlay may only be in the region
>> of £40-£50, but they have the highest running costs of any unit on
>> the market. With Lexmark it isn't a case of /if/ it fails, but
>> /when/. I have yet to see one last beyond the initial warranty
>> period (usually 12 months, but they usually fail well inside that).
>>
>> OK, the cheapest Lexmark (Z705) can be had for around £35-£40. A
>> replacement set of cartridges (black, colour, photo) will set you
>> back between £70-£80, IOW, *TWICE* what you paid for the unit!
>>
>> Go with Beezer's first suggestion - take it back and buy a Canon.
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 7:32:02 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

beezer (beezer@rezeeb.moc) writes:
> On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 11:01:59 -0400, "Hans" <lagom@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>>Dear Ms. Tick!
>>
>>My Lexmark Z705 is perfect for the purposes intended. Occasional printing at
>>a reasonable price. The cartridges, oh well, I do not recall that the Canon
>>ink was noticeably more economical. The instructions for the Z705 are very
>>good indeed, which I could not say for the Canon - the latter must have been
>>written by some high school graduate in Japan.
>>
>>The printing quality of the Z705 is good and I have learned how to avoid the
>>smudges in the upper left corner.
>>
>>By the way, none of my previous Lexmark printers have "failed". However
>>they are inexpensive and I can afford replacement when new technologies come
>>around.
>>
>>But, thanks for caring anyway.
>>
>>Hans in Canada
>>
>
>
> I am glad you have great success with Lexmark but their output is very
> very far from high quality. Occasional printing is far from
> "Reasonably priced" as the longer they sit the more chances there
> will be some noticable clogging.(usually 3 or 4 days)
>
> The Canon Ink is very economical being that you only replace the color
> ink that is needed thus not throwing away other colors that may be
> near full for that matter. The lexmark guestimate on ink consumption
> is very inaccurate.
>
> What makes Canon even more economical is its ease of refilling
> yourself with bulk ink and thus only costing 3 dollars or so per
> refill of high quality ink from reputable sources.
>

Aye, now there's the difference! You're not talking about a Canon
printer, but soemthing you were lucky enough to match an off-brand ink
with for successful results. My Lexmarks (a succession of them over the
last 7 years as I got new computers) have always been all right, and my
solution was to buy a cheap Laser (Lexmark, a rebranded Samsung) for black
and white printing, the bulk of my printing. Don't go crowing about how
cheap Canon (or any other brand is) when you're talking about refills.
There have to be as many messages here about failure to refill properly
and shady suppliers as success stories.

Brendan

> Canon "I" series printers have been known to remain clog free even
> after several months of remaining idle.
>
> I assure you after seeing the power of a Canon or other high quality
> printers, you will be amazed at the photo quality and versatility to
> match most any paper and the driver options are fantastic.
>
> Good luck
>
>
> OH and by the way, Canon ink tanks hold atleast 3 times the amount of
> a single color of any lexmark cartridge... THATS ECONOMICAL!!!!!
>
>
>


--
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 7:32:03 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On 26 Jul 2004 03:32:02 GMT, ck183@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Brendan R.
Wehrung) wrote:

>Aye, now there's the difference! You're not talking about a Canon
>printer, but soemthing you were lucky enough to match an off-brand ink
>with for successful results. My Lexmarks (a succession of them over the
>last 7 years as I got new computers) have always been all right, and my
>solution was to buy a cheap Laser (Lexmark, a rebranded Samsung) for black
>and white printing, the bulk of my printing. Don't go crowing about how
>cheap Canon (or any other brand is) when you're talking about refills.
>There have to be as many messages here about failure to refill properly
>and shady suppliers as success stories.
>
>Brendan



That is very true.. And those refill failure and bad supplier stories
are mostly from people that come here after the fact.

I do not see boasting of any other printer model about ease of
refilling or the low cost of ink mentioned here as much as the canon
printers

As far as my luck about matching ink to my printer....Sorry but it was
not luck. I came here, I read posts and learned what to buy and where
to buy it from. I read reviews, saw samples of photos and studied
everything I could find.

As far as Lexmark, Ive owned them since the Z11 model up to the Z52.
A new model every year and usually not by choice. When my canon costs
$74 to refill one time and 1/3 the ink capacity per color, I will then
trade it in for something more economical.
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 5:24:32 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Brendan R. Wehrung wrote:
> beezer (beezer@rezeeb.moc) writes:
>> On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 11:01:59 -0400, "Hans" <lagom@sympatico.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Dear Ms. Tick!
>>>
>>> My Lexmark Z705 is perfect for the purposes intended. Occasional
>>> printing at a reasonable price. The cartridges, oh well, I do not
>>> recall that the Canon ink was noticeably more economical. The
>>> instructions for the Z705 are very good indeed, which I could not
>>> say for the Canon - the latter must have been written by some high
>>> school graduate in Japan.
>>>
>>> The printing quality of the Z705 is good and I have learned how to
>>> avoid the smudges in the upper left corner.
>>>
>>> By the way, none of my previous Lexmark printers have "failed".
>>> However they are inexpensive and I can afford replacement when new
>>> technologies come around.
>>>
>>> But, thanks for caring anyway.
>>>
>>> Hans in Canada
>>>
>>
>>
>> I am glad you have great success with Lexmark but their output is
>> very very far from high quality. Occasional printing is far from
>> "Reasonably priced" as the longer they sit the more chances there
>> will be some noticable clogging.(usually 3 or 4 days)
>>
>> The Canon Ink is very economical being that you only replace the
>> color ink that is needed thus not throwing away other colors that
>> may be near full for that matter. The lexmark guestimate on ink
>> consumption is very inaccurate.
>>
>> What makes Canon even more economical is its ease of refilling
>> yourself with bulk ink and thus only costing 3 dollars or so per
>> refill of high quality ink from reputable sources.
>>
>
> Aye, now there's the difference! You're not talking about a Canon
> printer, but soemthing you were lucky enough to match an off-brand ink
> with for successful results. My Lexmarks (a succession of them over
> the last 7 years as I got new computers) have always been all right,
> and my solution was to buy a cheap Laser (Lexmark, a rebranded
> Samsung) for black and white printing, the bulk of my printing.
> Don't go crowing about how cheap Canon (or any other brand is) when
> you're talking about refills. There have to be as many messages here
> about failure to refill properly and shady suppliers as success
> stories.
>
> Brendan

I wasn't. I was talking about branded OEM.
!